I knew it would happen.
That guy goes shooting a rifle on the University of Texas campus, and it revives the whole “concealed carry on college campus” debate.
Dallas Morning News has an article.
John Woods, a UT graduate student who organized an anti-gun rally last year, disagreed. He said that having more guns on campus wouldn’t improve security.
“If there were multiple students running around with guns, it would’ve made the police’s job a lot harder this morning,” Woods said Tuesday. He was a student at Virginia Tech University in 2007 when a gunman killed 32 people, including Woods’ girlfriend.
And your proof for this is where? Yes, you’ve got a lot of emotional investment in the matter, but when we’re making policy we cannot make it based upon emotion, it must be made on fact and reason.
He said gun backers don’t understand that training to get a concealed carry license is “just eight hours in a classroom and a couple of shots at a target that’s not moving in a range – a very, very controlled situation.”
Actually, it sounds more like you don’t understand what is involved in getting a concealed carry license. I’m licensed by the State of Texas to teach CHL courses, so I know exactly what it takes to get a CHL. But I know what you’re doing — you’re minimizing, you’re trying to paint a particular picture that skews favor towards your stance. What would work better? Presenting facts and irrefutable proof.
Nevertheless, you are correct that the CHL testing doesn’t involve a moving target. But have you seen the testing and qualification courses that go on in some police departments? I think you’d be surprised to find out how many police officers aren’t that great a shot, and how many civilians are.
Katy Bacon, a [Bill] White spokeswoman, said “[Gov. Rick] Perry wants to mandate allowing guns on campus” but White believes “students, parents, administrators, and security personnel should decide.”
We mandate allowing guns everywhere else? What makes a college campus different? As evidenced by this past incident, college campus’ are not surrounded by an impenetrable force-field that keeps evil out and away. Evil can and does happen anywhere. Why should people be denied the ability to defend their lives? These cowards choose “soft targets” because they know they will not meet with (equal or greater, or just any form of) resistance. Why do people want to legislated being at the mercy of these evil cowards? What sense is there in that?
From the AP:
“I can’t think of any way that the situation yesterday would have been improved by additional guns,” said John Woods, a graduate student at UT-Austin who attended Virginia Tech in 2007, when a student gunman killed 32 people, including some of Woods’ friends.
Woods urged state lawmakers in 2009 to block a bill that would have allowed guns on campuses. It failed.
If a gunman is on the loose, and people try to shoot back, missed shots can pose their own danger to bystanders. And the number of guns can make it difficult for police to determine “who are the good guys and who are the bad guys,” Woods said.
He advocates preventive measures, like making mental health services available and putting locks on the insides of classroom doors.
There are mental health services available, and already laws on the books regarding mental health status and gun ownership. They help, but they can only do so much. I mean, this Tooley guy… no records of that. There’s always a first time, and no paper-trail is going to help that sort of crazy.
Locks inside classroom doors? To what end? Rifle rounds aren’t stopped by locks nor flimsy classroom doors. Besides, that implies a strategy of sitting still and becoming a victim. Why are you engaging in that mentality? If someone suggested putting locks on doors as a rape-prevention strategy, they’d be laughed out of the room.
Well… elections are in a month, and the 2011 Texas legislative session is coming. It’s going to be interesting.
Stuff From Hsoi 